The US eked by Canada today. Overall, the US seemed to have the better cohesion and tactical acumen in terms of passing, as well as better physical conditioning (which is usually the case), and all this helped us control the vital midfield. Canada seemed to have the better touch and technique and better individual creativity, and all this kept them in the game until the second half when our cohesion fell apart.
Hejduk has got to be proud of his one-touch strike of the Donovan layoff. It had just enough spin and bend to deflect the right way off the post. Not much Onstad could do about that one.
Onstad could've stopped the second goal though, had he listened to me as I talked to the TV. I told my wife that Donovan goes down the middle with his kicks, and the kicks are usually soft. I said that Onstad should just stand there and let the ball come to him. Didn't I, wife?
Wife: "Yes."
See?
Had Onstad stood there, he'd have stopped the kick and embarrassed his former Earthquake teammate.
I thought it cool that the two were talking right before the PK. You don't see adversaries talking much before one is going to shoot at the other. (BTW, I don't know that the PK should've been awarded. It looked to me that Beasley had lost the ball and dragged his foot to catch Onstad...like a Tomcat dropping its landing hook as it lands on the flight deck.)
I'm disappointed that Clark only got garbage time and Ching got no time. Was Ching even on the bench? If not, it's a travesty. If so, then he should've been put in. Johnson did not contribute anything on the field today. It seems he either has a hat trick or is a no-show when he plays. Either way, he doesn't make his teammates better. Today, he was a no-show. Ching is the better choice over him and Twellman. Travesty.
As for Clark, he is one of the best D-Mids for the US, but he doesn't start over Coach Bob's son, Michael. Unlike the forward situation, though, I can't argue that Clark is that much better than his replacement. Boy Bradley has good touch and passing; that he doesn't offer much in terms of shooting is immaterial with his position. I think both Clark and Bradley do well with Mastroeni…although Bradley's inability to play a physical game might mean he is a better complement to the physical Mastroeni, whereas Clark might be somewhat duplicative with Pablo.
All that was moot when Boy Bradley got the red card. Clark goes in then. I thought Dad Bradley should've left Mastroeni in with Clark to protect the lead.
As for Boy Bradley, I guess you should leave the physical play to the experts.
And how about that lead that we were protecting? Only through an iffy offside call at the end was the 10-man US able to get through to the next round. A recap: Canada plays the ball forward (no one is offside at this point), the ball goes to Onyewu and off his head (Hutchinson is offside at this point) and lands at Hutchinson's feet, who shoots the ball into the net. The Canadian coach says "Their player headed the ball down into the box and our player kicked it in. If one of their players played the ball back, it's a back pass and it cannot be offsides. That's how I saw it." Others agree.
I guess this is where my armchair refereeing fails me. I don't see anywhere in the Laws of the Game that benefiting from being offside is ever okay, back pass or no. However, the Laws do say that a player in an offside position is only penalized if he is gaining an advantage by being offside at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team. Well, if that's the case, then Hutchinson was onside when the ball was played by one of his team and the Canadian goal should stand. However, the Laws also say that "Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position." In which case, the goal was rightfully waived off.
Comments?
Onstad shows himself a wise veteran with his take: "We did things to put ourselves in that position, whether it was a bad call or not. We dug ourselves a hole."
At any rate, the US dodged a bullet, and their play in the second half was sub-par for the most part. We controlled the midfield in the first half, but not the second. The second half also saw the embarrassing whiff by Donovan in front of the goal (one of the few chances we had in the second half), and Dad Bradley followed his poor decision on attacking starters (Johnson and the creative Dempsey, who I think is better as a midfielder that pushes forward) with a poor decision on an attacking sub (Twellman), and it nearly cost us the game. We couldn't even protect the ball in the corner after a free kick with 30 seconds remaining. Sigh.
Now for the OTHER soccer game and happier times... Dynamo shellacks Chivas USA 4-0 tonight. Brad Davis gets a hat trick. Once more: Brad Davis gets a hat trick. I think that's our first hat trick since Ching's in the first Dynamo game ever -- versus Colorado last season. All 3 of tonight's goals from the run of play (1 from Mullan and 2 from Davis) were beauts.
I love it when we blow out the competition. (We had 17 shots to their 8? Really?) It was good to see the reserves get some more time, and Holden get the start. Stewart also had a good shot on goal in the opening minutes and created the third goal in the second half by working the ball down and feeding it to Ngwenya who fed it to Davis. Were there faces on the bench that you didn't recognize? There were for me. Wouldn't it have been cool for a John Michael Hayden to get his first minutes?
Okay, it's confession time: At the beginning of the game I lamented, "Oh no, Dom has Mullan as a forward."
Wife: "So?"
Armchair Coach: "He started his career as a forward, but he's a better midfielder. He can't even stay onside as a forward."
Wife: "Oh."
(Six minutes later) Armchair Coach: "Great strategy Dom! Awesome insight! Dale Dale Dale Dynamo..."
Wife: "But, you said..."
The best part about being an armchair coach is that there's no accountability when you're wrong.
[Addendum on the offside: Dynamo benefitted from a similar call when a Herculez Gomez goal was called offside at Colorado.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Let me disagree a little bit (this is soccer after all, no 2 fans can agree on everything), I believe the PK was a PK fair and square, but I believe Canada's goal was not off side, and that Bocanegra should have been ejected from the game, that would have changed everything, but there are no "what if,s" in soccer, the ref sometimes help you, and sometimes kills you, every player knows this.
I still think that these are the worst U.S. and Mexican National Teams I have seen in a long time, Mexico did play better today, Guadeloupe was not a real threat today, not bad if you take into consideration that Guadeloupe was playing great offensive soccer, but Mexico had the same problem the U.S. had today, a lot of opportunities but few goals.
We will have probably a horrible championship game, but a very exciting one, but these teams need to get their act together, Copa America will be a different beast.
4-0, enough said, there is nothing I can say about the game that is not explained with 4-0.
The US looked sloppy on defense. Dempsey is a great player but he should lose the theatric rolls. Also, Saturday, trying for a Thierry-Henry-like-finish, Clint: just put the ball in the net!
I've only been following the game for 12 years and always see something new...but my husband assures me the Canadian goal in the 94th minute was a goal. It was definitely off Gooch's head, we all saw it.
At the end of the day, it didn't stand and the US is through against Mexico (surprise, surprise). Neither side has looked overly dominant but it should be a scrappy final nonetheless.
Dale Dale Dale Dynamo...they looked great last night. The ESPN boys talk a lot of rubbish but I was pleased to hear Wynalda say: Chivas were not a pushover side and we (to paraphrase) made them look like chumps. Things just clicked, even Kelly Gray had some good touches.
I've not seen anyone celebrate a hat trick by donning a hat, so that was sort of cool. Ironically, it was an Astros cap which amuses me to no end, knowing that the Elf is a huge Cardinals fan: take that.
The ESPN boys mentioned that the missing four would need to earn their places but I think Onstad, DeRo and Ching will slip right back in but how about Rico?
Finally, where the heck is Dalglish? Is he really still injured or is this "ankle sprain" a subtle way of saying: you can be on your way now, thank you very much. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, as I've not heard anything on Daggers in weeks.
Thanks for the comments!
El Jardin, we're sympatico on Boca; I think he should've been ejected as well. Perhaps it's fitting that he was burned for the Canadian goal.
Though my memory is not what it used to be, I seem to remember in the 70s-80s (when I was very, very young) that the offside rule stipulated that you could be offside and intercept back passes legally, but the wording of today's offside rule (which mentions "rebounds") seems to rule out benefiting from the offside position no matter what (throw-ins, goal kicks, corners excepted). "Rebounds" could mean only unintentional deflections, or it could include intentional headers. It seems this is the 2nd time this has happened this season, the first involved the Dynamo. This calls for a post to Glenn Davis' blog.
MackeysGirl, I agree about Dempsey needing to stop doing the "look what I can do" and just seal the deal when in front of goal. As for Dalglish, the official word is that he's still out due to the ankle sprain suffered in practice. Those can take a while to heal, so I don't think there's anything else to the story. Daggers WILL have his work cut out for him to work his way back in the lineup though. At his salary, I'd be worried too.
Great celebration running around with the hat! I didn't realize Davis was a Cardinals (ptooey!) fan, but that does add some humor to the event.
4-0. I just had to write that again.
Woo-hoo! 4-0 Baby! Loved the hat run by Davis. After his first goal, ESPN (Wynnie) said "Dynamo would never be scored on like that, they're too organized in the back." Great pass by Wade!
I think the "rebound" rule means that if the offside player was offside at the time the ball was initially played, but is not penalized because he's not part of the play, but then becomes part of the play due to a rebound, then offside is called.
4-0 Baby!
I posted on Glenn Davis' site my extended question, along with Orangecleats' interpretation. I probably got too wordy, but controversy demands a little wordiness to bring a hint of legitimacy to one's position! Here's my post:
Glenn, My initial reaction was that the Canadian goal should’ve stood up, but upon review, I began waffling. Help me with the offside rule.
1) The rule–oops, I mean Law–states that to be penalized, the player must be offside “if he is gaining an advantage by being offside at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team.” Hutch was onside at the time his teammate played the ball. By this defn, the goal should have stood.
2) However, the LOTG clarify “gaining an advantage” as “playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.” Hutch was a hair offside when the ball came off Onyewu’s head, in which case, the goal was rightfully waived off.
3) However, the “gaining an advantage” definition could also mean that the rebound rule is only a factor if (a) the player was offside when “the ball touches or is played by one of his team” but (b) the player was not part of the play and was not penalized until (c) he becomes a part of the play due to the rebound. If THIS is the interpretation, then Hutch’s goal should have stood, because (as with interpretation 1 above) he wasn’t offside at the moment the ball was touched by a teammate, and being offside after the ball came off Onyewu’s head is not relevant.
I seem to remember back in my playing days that players weren’t penalized for playing the ball from an offside position if the ball came from an opponent. But it seems that FIFA has since written the “gaining an advantage” clarification to prevent anyone from benefiting by hanging out offside. This is assuming that interpretation 2 is correct and not interpretation 3. If so (and this is a big if), then the goal was rightfully waived. It would also make sense, because it would conform to FIFA’s desire to create a situation where teams must work the ball creatively to get past their opponents and not hang out past the defenders and hope for blind luck.
Dynamo benefitted from a similar call in May when Herculez Gomez had a goal waived up in Colorado. Gomez was onside when his teammate shot the ball, but was offside when Gomez collected the rebound and put the ball in the net
What are sports without controversy? Any refs in the house?
m@, offside can only occur at the exact time when the ball is touch by your teammate, if you watch the play again at the time the ball is touch by the Canadian side Hutch is not on an offside position, when Onyewu touches the ball, Hutch´s position is completely irrelevant, why?, because Hutch was not in an offside position when the ball was touched b his teammate.
I see you are a little bit confuse in the gaining advantage by being in offside after a rebound, if Hutch had been in the offside position at the time the ball was touched by his teammate, the fact that Onyewu touched the ball would have been irrelevant, why?, because Hutch was in the offside position at the time the ball was touched by his teammate, regardless of the fact the ball camed from someone of the opposing team, that is the definition of gaining an advantage from being in the offside position.
As you can see, Hutch did not gain an advantage, he was not in the offside position at the time the ball was touched by his teammate, that is the key part of the offside, "at the time the ball was touched".
Just as a final note, if an adversary wants to make a backward pass but hits the ball poorly and the ball ends in the feet of a player from the other team, it doesn`t matters if 2 adversaries were not between him and the net, there can never be an offside because it came from an adversary, this is why FIFA had to clarify that receiving the ball from an adversary and receiving the ball from a rebound are different things.
But as I already explained, at the time the ball was touched Hutch was not in the offside position, thus he didn´t incur in any penalty.
I hope I help you with this instead of confusing you a lot more.
El Jardin,
Thanks. Based on your input, I see interpretation #3 of my earlier post is correct.
I see Lark in his Fanblog on chron.com suggested that Hutch may have been offside "by a head" when his teammate struck the ball, but I don't think so. Hutch was off after the ball came off Onyewu, but as we pointed out, that's irrelevant
Post a Comment